It is so hard to believe that less than 6 months ago a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality was at risk of passing. Now, only 6 months later equality, not discrimination, is the law. This could not be any sweeter because this never would have happened at this time if the derpers hadn't tried to push that crap through in the last election. I am basking in the fabulousness of how this all transpired. Gold....pure gold.

With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.

FTFA:The lead Republican supporter of the bill, Sen. Branden Petersen, spoke during the closing arguments about his reasons for working with Dibble on the bill."I stand here, quite honestly, more uncertain of my future in this place than I ever have, but when I walk out of this chamber today ... I will be on the side of liberty," Petersen said.

Put party politics aside and imagine all the good that can be done. This man is a hero.

PsiChick:xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.

I think the guy graduated from a 'gay therapy' camp. That's where it comes from, not homophobia.

jvl:stoli n coke: What opinions? Opponents have hidden behind the Bible to justify trying to tell a certain group of the population that they are inferior and shouldn't get the option to do the same things they can. (Usually, quoting the same section of the Old Testament that says eating shrimp and shaving your facial hair are hell-worthy offenses.)

Ah, now we're going with the "I hate Christians and support Gay Marriage therefore Christians are to blame for opposition to Gay Marriage." So basically your going with the "Only a True Scotsman" fallacy?

Name one person who is opposed to it for a non-religion based reason.

I don't hate Christians at all. I am one. I just never understood how a preacher can stand at the pulpit clean-shaven wearing mixed fabrics and say that one section of Leviticus will incur divine wrath while the other rules listed right down the same page are okay now before ending the service and going to the seafood potluck.

Marriage is a legal construct in this country, not a religious one. Churches can still refuse to marry couples. I know churches that won't marry a couple if the woman is pregnant. I know a church that won't marry couples if one of them has been divorced. I even know one that didn't marry interracial couples up until a few years ago (byproduct of growing up in the South). Their operations won't change one bit.

This is about insurance, visiting partners in hospitals, legal rights to estates, helping speed along the adoption process, etc. In other words, the stuff a lot of married couples take for granted because they've never been screwed over by it.

In your world? None. But that's okay: inability to sympathize with the positions of others is common in homo sapiens. Normal side effects include demonizing your opponents and being extremely self-justified.

I have frequently observed that individuals who are unable to present any rational justification for their position will, rather than admit their inability, instead attempt to justify their refusal to present any rational argument by claiming that no reasoned argument will be accepted by their opponents. In addition to same-sex marriage opponents, such a rhetorical tactic has been employed by creationists and by opponents of concealed weapons permit systems.

Rather than actually serve as a convincing response, however, such an attempt to justify refusing to provide an answer is intellectually dishonest.

So ever since New York became an equal state, my personal laptop's wallpaper has been a picture of Niagara Falls illuminated with rainbow lights. Now I will get to replace it with an image of my own state.

brandent:Minnesota is all about being nice and MYOB. It wasn't a big issue. Nice folks don't talk about that. Then the fundies got all nuts and tried to push the issue on the ballot. Yard signs up, preachers in a tizzy. It all backfired in a huge way when the pro-gay marriage people successfully painted them as just mean and trying to run other people's business.

Ho boy did it backfire. It was beautiful. The Republicans controlled both houses of the legislature, but the governor was (and is) a Democrat. Constitutional amendment ballot initiatives sidestep the governor's office, so they went for both the gay marriage ban AND strict voter ID. Both initiatives were soundly defeated and both houses flipped solidly Democrat. After November 7th we could've just skipped Christmas.

jvl:You have heard perfectly rational justifications time and time again.

You are mistaken. I have not. Typically, my solicitations for such argumentations are met with no response at all. Occasionally, I have been presented with entirely irrelevant data sets; one individual referenced a study of sexually transmitted diseases amongst homosexual men in the United Kingdom while claiming the study to relate to the consequences of legal same-sex marriage which obviously was impossible as same-sex marriage is still not legal in the United Kingdom. Another individual claimed that same-sex marriage will harm children, but when pressed for justification openly admitted that he could not support his claim with evidence. Irrelevant data sets and admittedly unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute rational argumentation.

So, if I understand the Michele Bachmann's line of reasoning correctly, the first thing that's going to happen is that millions of straight marriages are going to be destroyed because now it's possible for dudes to marry other dudes, which is what they really wanted all along. Straight marriage was the only thing keeping them from getting down on one knee and proposing to the pool boy, you see. Next, as I understand it, God will begin to send plagues and other natural disasters to express his displeasure, as well a few large scale incidents of violence. Finally, since homosexuality destroys every culture that embraces it, Minnesota will fall to a massive invasion of gay barbarians from the north, just like ancient Rome, if the Huns had been gay Canadian lumberjacks.

ramblinwreck:real_headhoncho: Now that it is okay for members of the same sex to marry each other, how about fixing your economy, or sending a manned mission to Mars, or doing something that is actually important?

Uh oh. I have a feeling this is going to bring the Internet Social Justice "Warriors" out.

Why?

I mean, yes, awesome. Truly is. The sad is that such a big deal was made over it in the first place. We truly have better things to worry about than stopping adults from getting married. The gay marriage issue SHOULD be a non-issue and IMO was only herped and derped up as a form of filibustering - waste time with trying to ban it rather than worrying about real issues.

The funny is that, as pointed out above, the vocal minority got everyone else to say "You know what? Fine. We'll have a vote, and oh look, we're offically allowing it. Can we please move on now?"

FunkOut:xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.

I believe it's because he behaves in a manner seen as somewhat effeminate. Plus his wife seems to be the boss while he's the spouse trailing after her. Glenn Beck is crying frequently in public, many see that as girly. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is not girly. Perhaps even a robot. People often get the idea a man is gay if he's openly emotional or kind of theatrical. This is a bit silly because they forget macho hairy bear men exist.

He also runs a pray the gay away therapy thing, and we all know how well that works. It's a bunch of men in a small, rented room, with no windows, in folding chairs that are easily brushed aside in favor of a lush, carpeted floor, desperately pretending and brainwashing themselves into thinking that the force of prayer can chase away their lust for other men... Seriously, the odds of Marcus Bachmann being anything other than gay are infinitesimal. If not for the jesusderp, he'd be wearing a feather boa and heels.

ramblinwreck:Girl From The North Country: It is so hard to believe that less than 6 months ago a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality was at risk of passing. Now, only 6 months later equality, not discrimination, is the law. This could not be any sweeter because this never would have happened at this time if the derpers hadn't tried to push that crap through in the last election. I am basking in the fabulousness of how this all transpired. Gold....pure gold.

jvl:Bane of Broone: Go back to listening to Rush if that's how you feel.

I see you have the "demonize people who disagree with you" part of being human down pat. Good job! But you probably should have avoided the whole "jump to conclusion" part where you accuse me of not being a supporter of Gay Marriage.

/ I will choose Free Will!

I'm noticing that you aren't addressing his point, you're just accusing him of 'demonizing' you. Also you seem to be confused about what 'demonizing' means. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are persecuting you.

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist:Why are we summarily dismissing the religious argument against gay marriage as irrational? God may truly hate gay people and smite the world because of it. I'm completely serious. How do you know that God doesn't have his smite-filled finger pointed at America, waiting for the tipping point where he will destroy us?

If there are no rational religious arguments against gay marriage, then there are no rational religious arguments for or against anything. Or is rational religiousity simply shorthand for "policies I agree with that came as a result of religious introspection?"

Well in the US we have this belief in the separation of church and state so laws shouldn't be based on religious principals.

jvl:cameroncrazy1984: But why must you? You have yet to provide a logical answer as to why the line must be drawn somewhere. Unless, I suppose, you mean that it can be drawn at two adults above the age of consent in which case I agree with you.

Please go look at my original post where I described in depth the kinds of arbitrary distinctions that could be made. Basically marriage is a form of government welfare to a specific special-interest group. Like most giveaways, government could rationally choose to limit who receives the welfare. Even Gay Marriage makes arbitrary but rational choice on who receives this welfare since no one is planning on giving it to bigamists.

Original post:jvl:

Your argument assumes (incorrectly) that the only benefit of marriage is a financial one. You are ignoring the other benefits like being able to make legal decisions for your spouse, parental rights, general acceptance in society, etc... You know, equal rights.

tinfoil-hat maggie:True but it makes you wonder why he got into that line of work. It really must suck though to be that far in the closet.

On the other hand, he could honestly be so delusional based on his own self-loathing of his sexual identity and refusal to deal with it that he ACTUALLY believes that it's his mission in life from God to "help" others the same way he was "helped" to be totally-not-gay.

Additionally, what makes "only an adult man and a woman" rational? Especially since we've already established that those who cannot have children are allowed to be married, so you can't make the procreation argument.

If you're making the case that marriage has been an unequal institution for hundreds of years because of advances in fertility over the last 25, you're making a really poor case. Additionally, those same advances in fertility allow a same-sex couple to also procreate.

jvl:Summercat: Marriage is a special group given by our legal system for multiple reasons - "Spawning children" is not main purpose, nor a requirement, of marriage. Thus the procreation aspect is a red herring, and not a rational arguement to ban gay marriage (especially since said arguement can be turned on it's head as per adoption)

You assert that procreation is not the main purpose without evidence. Second, let's assume you are right and that procreation is not the main purpose. That does not make it a red herring if an opponent does not concede that an alternative purpose is correct.

In other words, to demonstrate that your opponent is irrational, you have an extremely difficult bar to surmount: you must show that the main purpose is inarguably not procreation. That "inarguable" part is why you will not be able to succeed.

Therefore the anti-Gay Marriage argument is merely wrong and not irrational, I'm right, and Hillary Clinton (my fav) is now automatically president.

We get it. You were on the High School debate team and played Phoenix Wright, Ace Attorney as a kid. However, it doesn't make your argument even resemble correct.

Honestly, my first thought was "in Bachmann's state? This must be a mistake."

Because of their electing Mrs. Bachmann, I have always thought of MN as a bit more of an intolerant and prejudiced state. Which, frankly, totally doesn't jive with their love of hockey and reputation for friendliness, but frankly you Americans are just a total mystery to the rest of us.

xria:With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.

It's not just about the possibility of Marcus being gay - it's also about how Marcus runs a "gay therapy" / "pray the gay away" center. Thus, such attacks from Farkers are also against the hypocrisy.

jvl:Ah, now we're going with the "I hate Christians and support Gay Marriage therefore Christians are to blame for opposition to Gay Marriage." So basically your going with the "Only a True Scotsman" fallacy?

You poor, poor persecuted little man.

I'll let you in on a hint: It's not Bah'ai, Atheists, Buddhists, and Muslims marching in the streets and demanding that God wants people to keep gay marriage illegal.

xria:With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.

I think the guy graduated from a 'gay therapy' camp. That's where it comes from, not homophobia.

jvl:stoli n coke: What opinions? Opponents have hidden behind the Bible to justify trying to tell a certain group of the population that they are inferior and shouldn't get the option to do the same things they can. (Usually, quoting the same section of the Old Testament that says eating shrimp and shaving your facial hair are hell-worthy offenses.)

Ah, now we're going with the "I hate Christians and support Gay Marriage therefore Christians are to blame for opposition to Gay Marriage." So basically your going with the "Only a True Scotsman" fallacy?

What's amazing to me is that you managed to read his post and somehow manage to get it completely wrong.

Providing some of the most heated rhetoric of the debate, Hall said, "People say, 'Don't you want to be on the right side of history?' The truth is I'm more concerned about being on the right side of eternity."=============================================

Considering this is what most christians believe, I'd rather party in hell.

aerojockey:mpirooz: "I stand here, quite honestly, more uncertain of my future in this place than I ever have, but when I walk out of this chamber today ... I will be on the side of liberty," Petersen said.

Petersen is a Republican. Let that sink in for a while.

Because all Republicans mindless robots who are only programmed to obey directives from their party leaders and have no will of their own, amirite?

Bender The Offender:"It will hurt businesses and confuse children ... more than any issue since the Civil War. We must not pass this bill," Hall said.

What the hell is that passage suppose to mean? What the fark is up with the civil war and business? I think the derp train might have derailed.

It's really simple- when you allow two men or two women to marry each other, it destroys the cotton industry and makes the blacks all uppity and when there's no cotton and uppity blacks the economy collapses.

This confuses the fark out of children because it makes absolutely no sense and they haven't yet learned to turn that part of their brain off.

So please, kill all the gays. It's to only way to stop the poor kiddies from getting flustered when they learn that everything we tell them is bullshiat.

He put forward a model in 2009 for which year each state would no longer support banning gay marriage. For Minnesota? 2013.

....which, while cool, has little to do with the Minnesota legislature supporting legalization. Sad to see many states where it's still banned despite clear popular support (looking at you, California).

/nonetheless, good work Minnesota!

That wasn't entirely our fault. The Mormons spent half the GDP of the state of Utah defeating our last attempt to make it legal, and they didn't have enough left to challenge Minnesota. You'll notice that since they "won" in California, other states have been toppling over like bowling pins, so maybe their cunning plan to subvert the Gay State wasn't as cunning as they thought.

I wouldn't say he's a hero. The people that have worked hard their entire lives( the activists, writers, and so on) for gays to be treated as equals are heroes, not a politician seeing the tide and saying "yes". This goes for the Democratic ones as well.

They listened to their constituents, which is good but not heroic. It's sad that it's the nature of politics for it to be that way.

Girl From The North Country:It is so hard to believe that less than 6 months ago a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality was at risk of passing. Now, only 6 months later equality, not discrimination, is the law. This could not be any sweeter because this never would have happened at this time if the derpers hadn't tried to push that crap through in the last election. I am basking in the fabulousness of how this all transpired. Gold....pure gold.

Minnesota is all about being nice and MYOB. It wasn't a big issue. Nice folks don't talk about that. Then the fundies got all nuts and tried to push the issue on the ballot. Yard signs up, preachers in a tizzy. It all backfired in a huge way when the pro-gay marriage people successfully painted them as just mean and trying to run other people's business.

icam:From another article: Bachmann later released a statement, saying she was "disappointed" that the legislation had passed and arguing that it "denies religious liberty to people who believe in traditional marriage and who do not want to be forced to violate their conscience and sincerely held religious beliefs."

Remember, folks, it's okay to deny people their rights so so long as religious people don't feel offended, and two people of the same sex getting married forces people to violate their conscience and sincerely held religious beliefs.

jvl:Almost Everybody Poops: California, which famously voted for President Obama and High-Speed Rail while voting to ban gay marriage...

I'm from California, the land of Prop 13, the election and recall of Gray Davis, of Nixon and Reagan and hippies and Issa, and yes, actually voting for High-Speed Rail. As Molly Ivins observed, wherever she went in this country, people would tell her that their local politics is the weirdest, craziest politics in the whole nation, and they'd be right every time.

xria:With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.

You do realize that Mr. Bachmann is a self-proclaimed gay man that was saved by Jesus.......she's used it as a campaign ploy before in her anti-gay rhetoric.

Girl From The North Country:It is so hard to believe that less than 6 months ago a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality was at risk of passing. Now, only 6 months later equality, not discrimination, is the law. This could not be any sweeter because this never would have happened at this time if the derpers hadn't tried to push that crap through in the last election. I am basking in the fabulousness of how this all transpired. Gold....pure gold.

Minnesotan's are quite libertarian really and they are extremely passive aggressive. Piss them off and feel their wrath. I had a feeling that when the representatives from the white racists districts put that shiat on the ballot for an amendment that it would turn around and bite them in their ass. It showed the rest of us just how discriminated they are in our state.

AccuJack:Sen. Dan Hall, later speaking against the bill, expressed his fears about the legislation, saying, "Next, I believe we will be forced to believe what we don't."

Providing some of the most heated rhetoric of the debate, Hall said, "People say, 'Don't you want to be on the right side of history?' The truth is I'm more concerned about being on the right side of eternity."

It will hurt businesses and confuse children ... more than any issue since the Civil War. We must not pass this bill," Hall said.

Uh... wut?

So he's saying that passing a bill to ensure equality, something that should be guaranteed in our country, is going to hurt businesses and confuse children more than things like the emancipation of slaves, women's suffrage, prohibition...?

Way to elect an idiot Lakeville et. al.

The bigot mind works like this:

-The civil war was brother turning against brother and a nation at war with itself because Certain Folks* couldn't just politely ignore Certain Things**. Now we're changing the rules and starting a battle instead of leaving things as they were because those gays can't just sit down and shut up and take one for the team so we can continue to have peace and quiet.

-Businesses will be hurt, because all those christians will pack up and move away instead of staying and accepting that other people have rights. Just like all those other states where that didn't happen.

-Children will be told by The Homosexual Agenda™ that being gay is superior to being straight, and be sexually confused by the child-molesting gay army of evangelical gay missionaries.

Begoggle:xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.

[i581.photobucket.com image 340x454]

She's a hate-mongering ignorant twunt who has no place being a representative in politics for anyone with half a brain. Any potential dignity that should be afforded her as we would a normal and decent person is suspended on the basis that she has demonstrated a willingness and desire to make her closed-minded religious-themed message and initiative as law.

tinfoil-hat maggie:I've read several of the stories way back when online of teens that went through places like that, it's tragic that places like that can exist. Not only does it hurt the person being sent but it reinforces the families belief that being gay is wrong.

I've read a couple too. Those places generally tend to be suicide-inducing hellholes rife with physical and sexual abuse.

The last part seems to be camps for troubled teens in general, and not just religious BS camps for praying the gay away. Sexual predators go after these kids because of how vulnerable they are.

hardinparamedic:tinfoil-hat maggie: True and the harm he has done by running such a place is pretty unforgivable. Also he really could be not gay and just an effeminate man but I think that's pretty unlikely.

When the American Psychological Association pretty much looks at you and says you are a quack that does irreparable harm to gay people, yes. You're absolutely right.

I've read several of the stories way back when online of teens that went through places like that, it's tragic that places like that can exist. Not only does it hurt the person being sent but it reinforces the families belief that being gay is wrong.

jvl:Summercat: Marriage is a special group given by our legal system for multiple reasons - "Spawning children" is not main purpose, nor a requirement, of marriage. Thus the procreation aspect is a red herring, and not a rational arguement to ban gay marriage (especially since said arguement can be turned on it's head as per adoption)

You assert that procreation is not the main purpose without evidence. Second, let's assume you are right and that procreation is not the main purpose. That does not make it a red herring if an opponent does not concede that an alternative purpose is correct.

In other words, to demonstrate that your opponent is irrational, you have an extremely difficult bar to surmount: you must show that the main purpose is inarguably not procreation. That "inarguable" part is why you will not be able to succeed.

Incorrect.

1) There is nothing on the legal books that marriage is for procreation, nor is there anything on the books mandating that married couples procreate, or that all procreation must take place in a marriage.

2) There is no evidence or support for the purpose of marriage, as per the argument you posited being primarily for procreation. The institution of marriage has it's origins in property laws and the transference of inheritance both in goods and in authority/power.

3) Further evidence for my argument (That the argument you posited is neither rational nor logical) is simply pointing out the lack of evidence to support the opposing argument. When someone makes a claim (as you did when putting forth this argument), it does not fall upon others to refute the claim, it is up to the claimant to support it. The burden of proof, as it's called, would fall upon anyone trying to claim that the institution of marriage is primarily for procreation. That is not an argument that can hold water, as per 1) and 2).

While I can understand how people come to these conclusions, and I can see their thought processes behind them, that does not mean they are rational or they hold up to scrutiny. People hold irrational beliefs all the time, and function as if they were true - which is perfectly fine, up to the point where they try to treat their irrational conclusions as rational, and try to force their conclusions upon others who disagree.

Basically, while the 'Procreation' argument sounds good in a soundbite or as an openning salvo, it cannot defend itself from examination of the claims it makes, and does not bear under scrutiny. Further, while it might have a veneer of rationality, it is primarily used (as can be seen by evidence) by people who have no other arguments left to oppose same sex marriages, outside of "The Gays are icky" and "My version of the Christian Bible says it's a sin", neither of which can be honestly accepted as a premise for a law in the United States.

Which brings me back, back, back to the begining of my conversation with you, in that I have not seen any rational arguments against same sex marriage. Please note, I did not say "Ones that people don't honestly believe in" because I know better. There are people who think we never went to the Moon, and that the Illuminati control the world, and that the Gold Standard is awesome.

vudukungfu:Sen. Dan Hall, later speaking against the bill, expressed his fears about the legislation, saying, "Next, I believe we will be forced to believe what we don't."

imokwiththis.jpg

Is he seriously arguing we're taking away his freedom to take away the freedom of others? I wonder what it's like to be so incredibly self centered as to think someone else being allowed to make personal choices that have no impact on anyone not personally involved in the situation is one step away from mind control.

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist:tinfoil-hat maggie: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Why are we summarily dismissing the religious argument against gay marriage as irrational? God may truly hate gay people and smite the world because of it. I'm completely serious. How do you know that God doesn't have his smite-filled finger pointed at America, waiting for the tipping point where he will destroy us?

If there are no rational religious arguments against gay marriage, then there are no rational religious arguments for or against anything. Or is rational religiousity simply shorthand for "policies I agree with that came as a result of religious introspection?"

Well in the US we have this belief in the separation of church and state so laws shouldn't be based on religious principals.

There are any number of laws that are religiously influenced but still pass constitutionality. Blue laws, obscenity laws, pornography laws, etc.

But they really shouldn't be. The whole banking fiasco was legal but that doesn't mean it should have been. Lots of things are illegal for no good goddamn reason. I'm sorry if certain behaviors hurt your religious sensibilities, but if they're not actively hurting you or your ability engage in your religion--on your own, you have no right to impose it on me or anyone else--you really don't have an actual argument beyond "I don't like it, no sir," which isn't an argument in any respect.

The religious argument against gay marriage has the easiest response of all of them: if you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married. Done.

MadCat:I'm a member of an Evangelical Lutheran Church of America congregation that employs a gay organist and choir director. Sexual preference was not a question asked at the interviews because it has no bearing on whether the candidates were capable of fulfilling the ministries the congregation was asking them to.

Nice. Our choirmaster, Head Usher, I can't tell you how many people of important things are gay at our church. We couldn't function without them. I love them all.

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist:tinfoil-hat maggie: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Why are we summarily dismissing the religious argument against gay marriage as irrational? God may truly hate gay people and smite the world because of it. I'm completely serious. How do you know that God doesn't have his smite-filled finger pointed at America, waiting for the tipping point where he will destroy us?

If there are no rational religious arguments against gay marriage, then there are no rational religious arguments for or against anything. Or is rational religiousity simply shorthand for "policies I agree with that came as a result of religious introspection?"

Well in the US we have this belief in the separation of church and state so laws shouldn't be based on religious principals.

There are any number of laws that are religiously influenced but still pass constitutionality. Blue laws, obscenity laws, pornography laws, etc.

kimwim:jvl: hardinparamedic: I'll let you in on a hint: It's not Bah'ai, Atheists, Buddhists, and Muslims marching in the streets and demanding that God wants people to keep gay marriage illegal.

Well, someone isn't familiar with the general beliefs of Muslims...

Or all Christians. Hey, we Episcopalians have gay Bishops, priests, hell, our most recent priest at our church just gay married his boyfriend!

I'm a member of an Evangelical Lutheran Church of America congregation that employs a gay organist and choir director. Sexual preference was not a question asked at the interviews because it has no bearing on whether the candidates were capable of fulfilling the ministries the congregation was asking them to.

hardinparamedic:tinfoil-hat maggie: True but it makes you wonder why he got into that line of work. It really must suck though to be that far in the closet.

On the other hand, he could honestly be so delusional based on his own self-loathing of his sexual identity and refusal to deal with it that he ACTUALLY believes that it's his mission in life from God to "help" others the same way he was "helped" to be totally-not-gay.

True and the harm he has done by running such a place is pretty unforgivable. Also he really could be not gay and just an effeminate man but I think that's pretty unlikely.

cameroncrazy1984:Additionally, what makes "only an adult man and a woman" rational? Especially since we've already established that those who cannot have children are allowed to be married, so you can't make the procreation argument.

Actually, the whole 'one woman, one man' definition is kinda new in over all historical terms.

06Wahoo:If there is one thing this thread proves, it is that those who support this measure are mostly irrational and insulting. How many pictures of the Bachmann's eating corndogs followed by snorts and giggles does it take for people to realize where the hate and the weakest arguments (condescension rather than rationale) really lie?

Wait - you're telling me that someone who runs a "pray-away-the-gay" camp, married to a woman who gets lobbied by Alcoa just to keep tinfoil hat sales high, is somehow more rational and less insulting than a person pointing out that Marcus Bachmann looks a bit at home noshing on a phallic object? And you're pearl-clutching over that?

jvl:We were discussing whether opponents of Gay Marriage are irrational or merely wrong.

Why can't it be both?

Really. Why not both, depending on the individual. We would classify someone like the Westboro Baptist Church as both wrong and irrational. While we would classify Joe Public who has been informed of the issue only by word of mouth, and has no knowledge of homosexuality other than a few fudge-packing jokes in High School and thinks it's wrong as misinformed and wrong.

You're trying to nail-down something that is so broad that it varies from person to person in the Anti-GLBT movement.

But why must you? You have yet to provide a logical answer as to why the line must be drawn somewhere. Unless, I suppose, you mean that it can be drawn at two adults above the age of consent in which case I agree with you.

jvl:I wasn't the one who moved the goal posts: you did. Here's your original post to refresh your memory. Maybe you can show me the part where it says "United States"? Or possibly where the bad man touched you.

The Article in question was about Minnesota. In what intellectually dishonest world did you think I was referring to anywhere but the United States? And moving the goalpost? You were the one that decided to try to change the topic to "all the bad things muslims were doing in France.", which is irrelevant to the topic.

Are you now to the point of concern trolling with red herrings and imaginary argumentum ad logicum, or do you actually have a learning disability where you can't follow the conversation stemming from the article, and your apologetics for the religious reasons which people crusade against basic human rights for gays and lesbians in the United States?

Those seem to be the only explanations for your level of deflection and avoidance of the issue here, including pulling a situation which is completely unrelated to the conversation out of your ass and using it to try to change the conversation to the topic of "but, but, but Muslims" when the actual issue is that the overwhelming majority of people in the United States who crusade against GLBT issues are both Christian and use their narrow and hypocritical interpretations of religious scripture to justify it?

06Wahoo:If there is one thing this thread proves, it is that those who support this measure are mostly irrational and insulting. How many pictures of the Bachmann's eating corndogs followed by snorts and giggles does it take for people to realize where the hate and the weakest arguments (condescension rather than rationale) really lie?

The side that's complaining about all the joking, obviously? Oh, and the side trying to deny equal rights to American citizens. They're (obviously) the same side.

If there is one thing this thread proves, it is that those who support this measure are mostly irrational and insulting. How many pictures of the Bachmann's eating corndogs followed by snorts and giggles does it take for people to realize where the hate and the weakest arguments (condescension rather than rationale) really lie?

Almost Everybody Poops:Summercat: jvl: Summercat: What rational arguements do you think the opponants of gay marriage have put forward, that do not depend on cherrypicking portions of a religious text or a misunderstanding of the cultural history of marriage in IndoEuropian cultures?

I think the argument regarding procreation is entirely rational, if one views marriage as a benefit which has a cost to society and therefore should be rationed to as few classes of people as possible.

I would get tired if I tried to enumerate all that is wrong with the argument, but most of my argument would entail how the institution of marriage was historically more like slavery, how my opponent is too focused on the rationalizations based on the history of recent centuries, and the suggestion that kindness alone is sufficient argument to allow gay marriage even if my opponent's view of the original purpose of marriage were correct.

Procreation as an arguement is rational on the surface, until you actually look at it. We already allow people to get married who can not have children, and we do not have laws on the books forcing married couples to have children.

Further, not only are this class of people (gays) unlikely to procreate natually, when they do form family groups they tend to adopt children who have been orphaned or abandoned. Studies have shown that a multi-parent household is better than a single parent household, et we block the formation of households able to adopt children.

The arguements rationality is only a thin dusty coating. It is just an attempt at grasping at straws. It is not rational at all.

What I'm understanding from jvl's posts is that there are more productive ways to convince others that SSM is okay other than outright shaming them for thinking otherwise. The argument he cited, as you just shown, can easily be debunked as "irrational", but to a lot of people they have an ingrained idea of marriage most likely they learned from their parents, and as well all know American ...

Hence why I said it was understandable. I know where they're coming from, but it is from a place where they are uneducated about the background behind their claims.

jvl:Summercat: Procreation as an arguement is rational on the surface, until you actually look at it. We already allow people to get married who can not have children, and we do not have laws on the books forcing married couples to have children.

Marriage is a preferred class of people given special preferences by the government. Let us suppose the purpose of government in doling out these preferences is to encourage or assist procreation. The question is, how should the government distinguish between those given and not given these preferences? Selecting heterosexuals as the only recipient of this welfare is a very course-grained choice since, as you point out, there will be some couplings that are infertile either voluntarily or non-voluntairly.

If one wanted to select only the fertile couples more carefully, then how far should we go? Do we psychoanalyze them? Should we test their plumbing thereby revealing things even the couple does not know? We could do those things. We could create a maze of laws and regulations establishing which tests must be performed and for how long.

I would argue that a line must be drawn, and that, assuming the goal is procreation, the currently line is a reasonable compromise between the interests of the state and over-regulated complexity.

Further, not only are this class of people (gays) unlikely to procreate natually, when they do form family groups they tend to adopt children who have been orphaned or abandoned. Studies have shown that a multi-parent household is better than a single parent household, et we block the formation of households able to adopt children.

As a supporter of Gay Marriage, I really hate to say this: as of yet we lack scientific evidence on the efficacy of gay parenting. You might recall that when Prop 8 was argued before the Supremes, the opponents of Prop 8 conceded this. Prior to that Supreme Court appearance, I had never heard of this argument.

Second, I agree that Multi-Parent households produce demons ...

It was a relatively recent study, that determined that the best results were:2 parents opposite gender > 2 parents, same gender > Single parent either gender.

It's hard to say how conclusive said study is, simply because of the paucity of data to draw from, and the fact that most of the results used by the study had to have been when there was an even greater stigma of being homosexual, or having homosexual parents - the externalities of harassment and ostracism can't be easily measured.

However, there are also studies that hint that *additional* parental figures in a family can be a boon overall to child development. FURTHER, the study concluded that two parents are, hands down, better than one - or none, in the case of foster kids.

Marriage is a special group given by our legal system for multiple reasons - "Spawning children" is not main purpose, nor a requirement, of marriage. Thus the procreation aspect is a red herring, and not a rational arguement to ban gay marriage (especially since said arguement can be turned on it's head as per adoption)

mavrickatubc:Honestly, my first thought was "in Bachmann's state? This must be a mistake."

Because of their electing Mrs. Bachmann, I have always thought of MN as a bit more of an intolerant and prejudiced state. Which, frankly, totally doesn't jive with their love of hockey and reputation for friendliness, but frankly you Americans are just a total mystery to the rest of us.

In our defense, we're quite liberal. We've voted for the Dem for President every year since 1976, so frankly Bachmann is the exception not the rule. Kept in place mainly by extreme gerrymandering on the part of the Republican house.

PsiChick:xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.

I think the guy graduated from a 'gay therapy' camp. That's where it comes from, not homophobia.

THIS.

The guy still or at least up until recently ran some sort of operation that tried to 'correct' other gay men to straight, obsesses about the subject constantly, and is worried that SSM will break up traditional marriages because men in traditional marriages will now feel empowered to run off with other men. Tell me again how it is just homophobia that people think the guy has some orientation issues.

xria:With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.

Fark liberals can be a little more sophisticated than that.

Marcus Bachman really is gay. He's as gay as gay can be gay. He's Oscar Wilde gay. He ran a pray-away-the-gay.

xria:With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.

rpm:jvl: I think the argument regarding procreation is entirely rational, if one views marriage as a benefit which has a cost to society and therefore should be rationed to as few classes of people as possible.

Most who trot out that don't follow that to the rational conclusion. I'm sterile, should I be allowed to marry? If so, why? (for the record, I am married). What about post-menopausal women?

Nor is there anything saying (US laws) that fertile couples must have children.

jvl:Summercat: What rational arguements do you think the opponants of gay marriage have put forward, that do not depend on cherrypicking portions of a religious text or a misunderstanding of the cultural history of marriage in IndoEuropian cultures?

I think the argument regarding procreation is entirely rational, if one views marriage as a benefit which has a cost to society and therefore should be rationed to as few classes of people as possible.

I would get tired if I tried to enumerate all that is wrong with the argument, but most of my argument would entail how the institution of marriage was historically more like slavery, how my opponent is too focused on the rationalizations based on the history of recent centuries, and the suggestion that kindness alone is sufficient argument to allow gay marriage even if my opponent's view of the original purpose of marriage were correct.

Procreation as an arguement is rational on the surface, until you actually look at it. We already allow people to get married who can not have children, and we do not have laws on the books forcing married couples to have children.

Further, not only are this class of people (gays) unlikely to procreate natually, when they do form family groups they tend to adopt children who have been orphaned or abandoned. Studies have shown that a multi-parent household is better than a single parent household, et we block the formation of households able to adopt children.

The arguements rationality is only a thin dusty coating. It is just an attempt at grasping at straws. It is not rational at all.

cameroncrazy1984:Noam Chimpsky: senates fault because they have no authority to change the defination of marriage.

A legislative body has no authority to change a law?

That's new.

Can you expound upon that, please?

He might be going on the (laughable but understandable) claim that marriage is a religious term meaning one man and one woman... Ignoring all other historical definitions, and that the US is polytheistic in population.

My reply is, my church(sic) allows any consenting adult to join together with any other consenting adult - consenting meaning they are capable of understanding what it is that they are doing.

FunkOut:xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.

I believe it's because he behaves in a manner seen as somewhat effeminate. Plus his wife seems to be the boss while he's the spouse trailing after her. Glenn Beck is crying frequently in public, many see that as girly. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is not girly. Perhaps even a robot. People often get the idea a man is gay if he's openly emotional or kind of theatrical. This is a bit silly because they forget macho hairy bear men exist.

As an aside, it's interesting how cultures can be so different. In ancient Greece, a man was expected to cry, at least for certain reasons, or else he wasn't a man. I think Odysseus cried like 40 times in the Illiad.

jvl:Dimensio: jvl: You have heard perfectly rational justifications time and time again.

You are mistaken. I have not. Typically, my solicitations for such argumentations are met with no response at all. Occasionally, I have been presented with entirely irrelevant data sets; one individual referenced a study of sexually transmitted diseases amongst homosexual men in the United Kingdom while claiming the study to relate to the consequences of legal same-sex marriage which obviously was impossible as same-sex marriage is still not legal in the United Kingdom. Another individual claimed that same-sex marriage will harm children, but when pressed for justification openly admitted that he could not support his claim with evidence. Irrelevant data sets and admittedly unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute rational argumentation.

I fail to see how the existence of a non-rational argument against gay marriage demonstrates that you have not heard a rational one.

Have you seen a rational arguement? I havent, and am interested in seeing one.

jvl:Dimensio: jvl: You have heard perfectly rational justifications time and time again.

You are mistaken. I have not. Typically, my solicitations for such argumentations are met with no response at all. Occasionally, I have been presented with entirely irrelevant data sets; one individual referenced a study of sexually transmitted diseases amongst homosexual men in the United Kingdom while claiming the study to relate to the consequences of legal same-sex marriage which obviously was impossible as same-sex marriage is still not legal in the United Kingdom. Another individual claimed that same-sex marriage will harm children, but when pressed for justification openly admitted that he could not support his claim with evidence. Irrelevant data sets and admittedly unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute rational argumentation.

I fail to see how the existence of a non-rational argument against gay marriage demonstrates that you have not heard a rational one.

I presented examples of what I have observed. You have asserted that I have also heard or seen a rational argument opposing legal recognition of same-sex marriage, but you have not provided any demonstration of such.

jvl:Bane of Broone: Go back to listening to Rush if that's how you feel.

I see you have the "demonize people who disagree with you" part of being human down pat. Good job! But you probably should have avoided the whole "jump to conclusion" part where you accuse me of not being a supporter of Gay Marriage.

/ I will choose Free Will!

Ah... the old "I haven't taken a position, so everything you say is wrong" troll. Its my favorite!

jvl:Dimensio: I am willing to listen to and consider a rational argument for continuing to prohibit legal recognition of same-sex marriage. I have requested, repeatedly, presentation of such an argument. Thus far, however, no such argument has been presented.

You have heard perfectly rational justifications time and time again. Like me, you disagree with them and think the justification are just a product of traditionally-held tribal beliefs about homosexuality.

The only difference between you and me is the I'm content to call their reasoning wrong, whereas you insist that the argument is irrational.

What rational arguements do you think the opponants of gay marriage have put forward, that do not depend on cherrypicking portions of a religious text or a misunderstanding of the cultural history of marriage in IndoEuropian cultures?

In your world? None. But that's okay: inability to sympathize with the positions of others is common in homo sapiens. Normal side effects include demonizing your opponents and being extremely self-justified.

Care to enlighten us?

Not even gonna put up with the "why won't you tolerate my intolerance?" bullshiat. Go back to listening to Rush if that's how you feel. Some positions are flat out wrong. I'm sure your logical and philosophical consistency helps you sleep at night, but if you cant take issues on a case by case basis than either you are lazy or willfully perpetuating hatred.

Didn't mean to direct that towards you, Jesterling. I'm out anyway. Need to keep to my word and not give it a platform.

Ya I figured, no worries. I've yet to hear a good reason why gay marriage shouldn't be permitted in the US - it's always some nonsense about gayness being icky, naughty or frowned upon in Bronze Age holy books.

Theaetetus:Nice part of these recent state actions is that it makes it more and more likely that SCOTUS will do something sweeping with the DoMA and Prop 8 cases. They hate being seen as holding back an inevitability, particularly one that will be a major note in the history books. Even Scalia is concerned about his legacy.This makes a 9-0 (though really 5-4) DoMA decision more likely, with the liberals in favor of equal rights and the conservatives in favor of states' rights.

No, it's got to be at least 8-1 or 7-2; I can't imagine Scalia and his pet Thomas ever ever voting in favor of letting those icky homosexuals out in the open to Do It no matter what the states say is okay. He may want to preserve his legacy, but part of that legacy is never giving a shemale an even break.

jvl:Bane of Broone: Go back to listening to Rush if that's how you feel.

I see you have the "demonize people who disagree with you" part of being human down pat. Good job! But you probably should have avoided the whole "jump to conclusion" part where you accuse me of not being a supporter of Gay Marriage.

/ I will choose Free Will!

What's important here is that you've found a way to feel morally superior. Kudos.

In your world? None. But that's okay: inability to sympathize with the positions of others is common in homo sapiens. Normal side effects include demonizing your opponents and being extremely self-justified.

I have frequently observed that individuals who are unable to present any rational justification for their position will, rather than admit their inability, instead attempt to justify their refusal to present any rational argument by claiming that no reasoned argument will be accepted by their opponents. In addition to same-sex marriage opponents, such a rhetorical tactic has been employed by creationists and by opponents of concealed weapons permit systems.

Rather than actually serve as a convincing response, however, such an attempt to justify refusing to provide an answer is intellectually dishonest.

There's just no talking to you about this stuff, you're not listening because you're too heavily invested in your own opinion.

I am willing to listen to and consider a rational argument for continuing to prohibit legal recognition of same-sex marriage. I have requested, repeatedly, presentation of such an argument. Thus far, however, no such argument has been presented.

I see you have the "demonize people who disagree with you" part of being human down pat. Good job! But you probably should have avoided the whole "jump to conclusion" part where you accuse me of not being a supporter of Gay Marriage.

Nice part of these recent state actions is that it makes it more and more likely that SCOTUS will do something sweeping with the DoMA and Prop 8 cases. They hate being seen as holding back an inevitability, particularly one that will be a major note in the history books. Even Scalia is concerned about his legacy.This makes a 9-0 (though really 5-4) DoMA decision more likely, with the liberals in favor of equal rights and the conservatives in favor of states' rights.

In your world? None. But that's okay: inability to sympathize with the positions of others is common in homo sapiens. Normal side effects include demonizing your opponents and being extremely self-justified.

What opinions? Opponents have hidden behind the Bible to justify trying to tell a certain group of the population that they are inferior and shouldn't get the option to do the same things they can. (Usually, quoting the same section of the Old Testament that says eating shrimp and shaving your facial hair are hell-worthy offenses.)

It's about telling other people how they are allowed to live. Always has been. People are entitled to their opinions, but when your opinion is used to try to shove your beliefs into someone else's face, fark you and the horse you rode in on.

Consenting adults can figure out how to live their own lives without any help.

In your world? None. But that's okay: inability to sympathize with the positions of others is common in homo sapiens. Normal side effects include demonizing your opponents and being extremely self-justified.

Care to enlighten us?

Not even gonna put up with the "why won't you tolerate my intolerance?" bullshiat. Go back to listening to Rush if that's how you feel. Some positions are flat out wrong. I'm sure your logical and philosophical consistency helps you sleep at night, but if you cant take issues on a case by case basis than either you are lazy or willfully perpetuating hatred.

aerojockey:mpirooz: "I stand here, quite honestly, more uncertain of my future in this place than I ever have, but when I walk out of this chamber today ... I will be on the side of liberty," Petersen said.

Petersen is a Republican. Let that sink in for a while.

Because all Republicans mindless robots who are only programmed to obey directives from their party leaders and have no will of their own, amirite?

Gyrfalcon:radarlove: Bender The Offender: "It will hurt businesses and confuse children ... more than any issue since the Civil War. We must not pass this bill," Hall said.

What the hell is that passage suppose to mean? What the fark is up with the civil war and business? I think the derp train might have derailed.

It's really simple- when you allow two men or two women to marry each other, it destroys the cotton industry and makes the blacks all uppity and when there's no cotton and uppity blacks the economy collapses.

This confuses the fark out of children because it makes absolutely no sense and they haven't yet learned to turn that part of their brain off.

So please, kill all the gays. It's to only way to stop the poor kiddies from getting flustered when they learn that everything we tell them is bullshiat.

FINALLY! Someone explained the gay-marriage thing in a way that makes total nonsense!

Actually, there's a nugget of truth in there re: confusing children. I think that statement actually reflects that they're afraid that if kids see what bullshiat all of their anti-gay rhetoric is, they'll begins asking themselves what else they've been lied to about.

Pot?The merits of social welfare?Unions and regulation?Unquestionably obeying authority?9/11?God?

If you want limited government, Hann explains, you need "moral virtue" and "discipline" and other verities that "reinforce the idea of individuals being accountable."It's Hann's view that marriage is fundamental to these verities.

real_headhoncho:Now that it is okay for members of the same sex to marry each other, how about fixing your economy, or sending a manned mission to Mars, or doing something that is actually important?

Most if not all the money poured into this was fighting it. If you Republicans cared so much, maybe you could have just let the inevitable happen and go create some jobs instead. Nope, had to pour millions into sticking your nose in other people's business and legislating the bedroom.

What the fark? We have two male cats that are that color of tabby and black, that make the same pose, and we have the same bedsheets. Our cats have different facial structures and we don't have that brown pillow, but I did a second take because I'm tired. Wow.

Everybody has those sheets. They were on sale for a long time. And all cats do that.

I don't think he's that excited about this. I'm guessing that he prefers the danger and excitement of giving blow jobs in the public restrooms at Como park a lot more then the idea of a stable, monogamous, relationship.

ramblinwreck:Girl From The North Country: It is so hard to believe that less than 6 months ago a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality was at risk of passing. Now, only 6 months later equality, not discrimination, is the law. This could not be any sweeter because this never would have happened at this time if the derpers hadn't tried to push that crap through in the last election. I am basking in the fabulousness of how this all transpired. Gold....pure gold.

dukeblue219:ramblinwreck: Girl From The North Country: It is so hard to believe that less than 6 months ago a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality was at risk of passing. Now, only 6 months later equality, not discrimination, is the law. This could not be any sweeter because this never would have happened at this time if the derpers hadn't tried to push that crap through in the last election. I am basking in the fabulousness of how this all transpired. Gold....pure gold.

ramblinwreck:Girl From The North Country: It is so hard to believe that less than 6 months ago a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality was at risk of passing. Now, only 6 months later equality, not discrimination, is the law. This could not be any sweeter because this never would have happened at this time if the derpers hadn't tried to push that crap through in the last election. I am basking in the fabulousness of how this all transpired. Gold....pure gold.

LOLWUT

Yeah I don't really get your LOLWUT comment. Vote No on the amendment never reached 50% in the polls until about a week before the election

vygramul:mpirooz: "I stand here, quite honestly, more uncertain of my future in this place than I ever have, but when I walk out of this chamber today ... I will be on the side of liberty," Petersen said.